Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 08:22AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 08:33AM

Essentially, he'll push for theocracy, so it's OK to vote for a child molester.

Asshats.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tall Man, Short Hair ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 01:46PM

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Essentially, he'll push for theocracy, so it's OK
> to vote for a child molester.
>
> Asshats.

Now explain why Democrats lionized Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd.

Is it your position that an allegation with no outside witnesses apart from the two parties involved should be universally accepted as indisputably true in all instances? (Asking for Juanita Broaddrick)

Would you consider the possibility that 40-year-old unsubstantiated allegations raised in the 11th hour of a political campaign may possibly warrant greater scrutiny than if those same allegations were raised at a time when they would offer no political gain?

Can you think of any examples when entirely false allegations have been raised by a political operative for the sole purpose of advancing a political agenda? Hint: Google "harry reid romney tax returns"

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 07:40PM

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now explain why Democrats lionized Bill Clinton,
> Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd.

I'm not aware of any child molestation allegations against any of them...?

As for "lionized"...
Count me (among many others) who roundly condemned their sexual dalliances.


> Is it your position that an allegation with no
> outside witnesses apart from the two parties
> involved should be universally accepted as
> indisputably true in all instances? (Asking for
> Juanita Broaddrick)

No.
But as that's a complete misrepresentation of the allegations against Moore, I can't imagine why you asked it.

> Would you consider the possibility that
> 40-year-old unsubstantiated allegations raised in
> the 11th hour of a political campaign may possibly
> warrant greater scrutiny than if those same
> allegations were raised at a time when they would
> offer no political gain?

No, as all allegations merit the same "scrutiny," no matter their age or timing.

> Can you think of any examples when entirely false
> allegations have been raised by a political
> operative for the sole purpose of advancing a
> political agenda? Hint: Google "harry reid romney
> tax returns"

Sure. That false allegations have been made in other instances do not mean these are false. That true allegations have been made in other instances do not mean these are true. Other allegations are entirely irrelevant -- those against Moore stand or fall on the evidence, not on anything else.

And the evidence they are true is compelling.

At any rate, you seem to have missed the point of the article entirely -- which was the "christians" should vote for him even if the allegations ARE true. And it gave biblical "justification" for doing so. Because of what he's promised to do for christians.

Which was what I summarized in my post above -- vote for a child molester 'cause he'll push for theocracy. THAT was the point of the article entirely.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2017 07:47PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 09:01PM

+1.0x10^9

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: December 01, 2017 12:17AM

+6.02 x 10^23

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: December 01, 2017 09:03AM

I wonder, Dave, how many other geeks got that? :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: December 01, 2017 06:42PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: a nonny moouse ( )
Date: December 01, 2017 09:04AM

exactly how often do you think sexual assault happens with a witness present?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: clever deceipt ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 09:17AM

It's interesting how this rationalization requires that the [offenses] be reclassified from [criminal] to [something less than criminal], mostly, [fellings of offense] by the victims, rather than the criminal actions of the perpetators:


Fair use quote from link for purposes of commenting:

"It is good that women should not be afraid to complain if they have been genuinely subjected to harassment (an offense that will require much more careful definition), so that men know that improprieties will, at the least, lead to severe embarrassment (as Moore and Franken are going through). But men (and women) have a right to be tasteless, stupid, and offensive without having their careers abruptly terminated with no deliberation or mercy."


That a crime was not reported or prosecuted makes it no less a crime. That a statute of limitations has been expended does not equate to innocence. Crime is "tasteless, stupid and offensive," but, it is also criminal. Sexual harrassment and assault are both crimes, and, those non-illegal, lesser descriptors that the author wishes to use.

If one chooses a public career, one should not break the law, or the sacrifice of his or her career may be required. That is also "lesser" than a criminal prosecution, in which case, that public career would have been much less likely. That the perpetrators got away with breaking the law does not then entitle them to getting away without any repercussions or responsibility for their crimes, for the remainder of their lives. And for a ladyst of these perps, there are multiple accusers/victims, and, the nature of the crimes was "general knowledge."

I would say that any "mercy" was dealt the perp in the avoidance of prosecution. He/she has already received a generous benefit from society, and along the way, became a societal "leader" of whatever stripe, usually, with great personal enrichment. The party is over. If we can't prosecute, that's the least price of having broken the law. If the perp put nothing away for a rainy day, not our problem.

And, what about their employers and supporters? Some deceived by the perp, some not. Sounds like the regular, expected abuses of organized religion. Put up, and shut up, all ye worthy brethren.

That "much more careful definition" -I'm sure- may be safely translated to: "decriminalizing unwanted/unasked touching." "One may touch, but not apply grabbing pressure." or "Brushing the nipple with the back of one's hand is not considered to be..."

... Some interesting redefinitions may be headed our way from this lot.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: clever deceit ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 09:22AM

ladyst = most

...wtf, auto replace?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: caffiend ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 07:27PM

The "Affirmative Consent Project" provides standardized "conscious consent contract kits," along with a breath mint and a condom. No rose, alas. Since there are no agreed-upon guidelines, contracts and litigation will now prevail.

"Female ______ will allow partner (specify current gender)_________ to fondle and kiss, but not suck, breasts..." We can't have any misunderstandings!

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420870/students-told-take-photos-consent-contract-they-have-sex-katherine-timpf

Ah, romance!

(I was Displaced Person (i.e. refugee) during the Sexual Revolution.)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: December 01, 2017 12:19AM

"Writing for The Daily Beast, author and theologian Candida Moss explains how Moore and his supporters are using the Bible to try and discredit the women Moore sexually harassed and abused when they were only teenagers.

Explicating “The Biblical Basis for Roy Moore’s Attacks on His Accusers” Moss discusses “the women are not to be trusted” argument in the “context of Christianity,” writing:

The problem isn’t just that the women of the Bible are largely presented as temptresses, whores, and chattel; it is that they are also depicted as liars. The biblical seductress Delilah embodies this understanding of women when she leads astray and emasculates the heroic Samson. Delilah is both a whore, as she is paid by the Philistines to discover the secret of Samson’s power, and a liar, as she pretends to care for Samson in order to extract his secret and render him impotent. The upshot of the story, which is entrenched in ancient near eastern mythology in general, in that beautiful women cannot be believed, especially when it comes to the bedroom.

In another, often overlooked passage from the Bible, the daughters of Lot seduce their own father. After surviving the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and realizing that they now have no possibility of marriage and offspring, Lot’s unnamed virgin daughters get their father drunk and become pregnant by him. In the modern world this is rape, in the biblical one it is coded as seduction. If the women are evaluated negatively here it is not for sexual assault it is for deceit and seduction: they misled him. (Side bar: it seems only fair to note that several chapters before this Lot was eager to turn his daughters over to an angry mob to be gang raped to protect the angels he was keeping in his house).

In the biblical chronology this idea goes all the way back to the first humans: in the Garden of Eden, after being expressly told not to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Eve is persuaded by the serpent to take the fruit and offer it to Adam. She does and the rest, as they say, is primordial history…"

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: December 01, 2017 12:34AM

Roy Moore Co-Authored Course That Says Women Aren’t Qualified to Run for Office

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: December 01, 2017 07:31AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: tnurg ( )
Date: December 02, 2017 04:17PM

Creepy roy moore is in a category all his own! He's accused of being a child molester - pedophile if you will! The rest of the offenders appear to be in the womanizer indiscretions group!

Evangelical, religious right nimrods who buy into this biblical nonsense designed to justify pedophilia are degenerates! Now we know why the Founding Fathers wisely excluded a State Religion! We have the freedom to lawfully worship as we chose but also have the freedom from oppressive, abusive application of vile religion! As Always, tnurg (GRUNT)

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********   **     **  **     **  ********   **      ** 
 **     **  **     **  **     **  **     **  **  **  ** 
 **     **  **     **  **     **  **     **  **  **  ** 
 **     **  **     **  *********  **     **  **  **  ** 
 **     **   **   **   **     **  **     **  **  **  ** 
 **     **    ** **    **     **  **     **  **  **  ** 
 ********      ***     **     **  ********    ***  ***